Chinese printer cartridge maker Ninestar Corp. has until Nov. 7 to reply to the U.S. motion to dismiss Ninestar’s suit against its placement on the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List, the Court of International Trade said Oct. 4. Judge Gary Katzmann said the reply can include a response regarding the company's motion for a preliminary injunction (Ninestar Corp. v. United States, CIT # 23-00182).
The Court of International Trade doesn't have subject-matter jurisdiction over the Forced Labor Enforcement Task Force's (FLETF) addition of entities to the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List, the U.S. argued in an Oct. 3 motion to dismiss. Seeking dismissal of a case filed by Chinese printer cartridge manufacturer Ninestar Corp., the government said that because the FLETF's decision is neither an embargo nor a quantitive restriction, the court doesn't have jurisdiction over the proceeding under Section 1581(i), the court's "residual" jurisdiction (Ninestar Corp. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00182).
Chinese printer cartridge maker Ninestar Corp., along with eight of its Zhuhai-based subsidiaries, opposed the U.S.'s motion to extend the time to file a response to their request for a preliminary injunction in a case against their addition to the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA) Entity List. Ninestar said the government, in asking for a total of 62 more days, failed to show "good cause" for needing a delay to address "even one element of the preliminary injunction test" (Ninestar Corporation v. United States, CIT # 23-00182).
Four witnesses asked Congress to pass Level the Playing Field Act 2.0, a proposal that would change trade remedy laws in favor of domestic manufacturers, at a House hearing called the "Chinese Communist Party Threat to American Manufacturing."
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Forced Labor Enforcement Task Force (FLETF) violated the Administrative Procedure Act by failing to provide any rationale for adding Chinese printer cartridge manufacturer Ninestar Corp., along with eight of its Zhuhai-based subsidiaries, to the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA) Entity List, the companies, led by Ninestar, argued (Ninestar Corp., et al. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00182).
DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas and Acting CBP Commissioner Troy Miller must respond to allegations of forced labor used in imported cocoa from Côte d’Ivoire by seven major chocolate companies, the International Rights Advocates (IRAdvocates) said in its Aug. 15 complaint at the Court of International Trade. The suit aims to force DHS and CBP to issue a decision in response to a 2020 petition filed by IRAdvocates along with Corporate Accountability Lab, and the University of California Irvine Law School's Human Rights Clinic (UCI) (International Rights Advocates v. Alejandro Mayorkas and Troy Miller, CIT # 23-00165).
Hong Kong-based apparel company Chagji Esquel Textile (CJE) and the Commerce Department filed a joint stipulation of dismissal on Aug. 11 in CJE's suit challenging its placement on the Entity List. The parties most recently filed a joint status report in June as they discussed the conditions related to the End-User Review Committee's July 2021 decision to drop the company from the Entity List (Changji Esquel Textile Co. v. Gina M. Raimondo, D.D.C. # 21-01798).
Trade Law Daily is providing readers with the top stories from last week in case you missed them. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's recent ruling in Royal Brush Manufacturing v. U.S., which found that CBP violated importer Royal Brush's due process rights by not giving it access to business confidential information in an antidumping and countervailing duty evasion proceeding, "may have broader implications," including on forced labor issues, customs lawyer Lawrence Friedman said in a July 28 blog post. If the decision "applies generally, it may require that" CBP make its record fully available, including BCI, which would be an "interesting unintended consequence" of this Enforce and Protect Act case, Friedman said.